IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209 Date of decision: July 01, 2025 RANBIR SINGH .....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Advocate Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate and Mr. Mukul Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab with ASI Gulsher Singh.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1. The instant petition is the third petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.32 dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) under Section 13(1)A read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Ludhiana.

2. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who was serving as Executive Engineer (XEN) with the Municipal Corporation (MC), Ludhiana, has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, annexed as Annexure P-1. The allegations pertain to the alleged wrongful procurement of a sum of Rs.3,16,58,000/- by way of temporary advance from the Contingency Fund of the Municipal Corporation, purportedly under the pretext of making payments to PSPCL.

However, it is submitted that the said amount was neither misappropriated nor diverted for any personal gain by the petitioner.

3. Drawing the attention of this Court to the contents of Annexure P-2, learned Senior counsel submits that the allegations lack substance, as the petitioner had obtained necessary approvals from the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation before withdrawing the amount in question. Moreover, out of the total advance of Rs.3,16,58,000/-, a substantial amount of Rs.3,12,23,729/- has already been deposited back into the bank account of the Municipal Corporation.

4. It has been further submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.10.2024. Although the challan was presented in February 2025, charges have not yet been framed. The likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future remains remote as the requisite sanction for prosecution is still awaited. Attention is also drawn to the fact that co-accused Pankaj Garg and Rajinder Singh, who stand on similar footing, have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, a prayer is made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, and reiterated the allegations levelled against the petitioner and argued that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, obtained Rs.3,16,58,000/- from the Contingency Fund of the Municipal Corporation. However, upon instructions, learned State counsel is unable to dispute that only an amount of Rs.4,34,692/- remains to be accounted for, while the remainder had been duly deposited back with the Municipal Corporation. Learned State counsel, on further instructions, does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner, nor the stage of trial. Furthermore, he has not denied, on instructions, that the similarly situated co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed on record.

7. The petitioner, while being posted as XEN with the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana during the period 2021-22, is alleged to have withdrawn a temporary advance of Rs.3,16,58,000/- from the Contingency Fund. However, the said withdrawal was purportedly made after obtaining due approval from the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, and the amount except Rs.4,34,692/- has already been deposited back into the bank account of the Corporation.

8. Considering that the case is primarily based on documentary eviden